Nikon AW1 First Impressions Review

Well now here's a pleasant surprise - Nikon has released a rugged, waterproof mirrorless interchangeable lens camera - along with a pair of equally tough lenses - for a starting price under $800. Those familiar with Nikon film cameras may fondly recall the days of the Nikonos, with which the company dominated underwater photography from the 1960s onward.

The AW1 is essentially, if not exactly, a ruggedized version of Nikon's 1 J3. It is waterproof down to 15 meters (49 ft), shockproof from up to 2 meters (6.6 ft), and protected against cold as low as -10 degrees Celsius (14F). It is announced with two lenses - equally ruggedized versions of the 11-27mm (30-74mm equiv) and 10mm (27mm equiv) optics that already form part of the 1 System lineup. The AW1 is compatible with all 1 System lenses, but it will not be water, shock or freezeproof with a non-ruggedized lens on the front. The waterproof lenses, however, will not be compatible with other 1 System cameras.

Nikon AW1: Key Specifications

Waterproof, shockproof and freezeproof

14MP C-format (2.7x crop factor) CMOS sensor

ISO 100-6400

3-inch LCD with 921,000 dots

Built-in GPS with compass, altimeter, and depth meter

Action Control system for underwater/gloved operation

PASM shooting via 'Creative Mode' menu

15 fps burst mode with continuous AF, 60 fps with single AF

Full HD 1080p video

Nikon's 1 System has been around for a couple of years now, and although we weren't entirely convinced by the initial pair of cameras - the J1 and V1 - they did offer some unique (at the time) hybrid autofocus technology, and some cool features. Ultimately, they also did exactly what Nikon wanted them to do, providing intermediate and novice users with better-than-compact image quality plus the ability to add lenses and system accessories if needed.

The asking price for the initial offerings was a little high - especially for the V1 - but since then the system has expanded sensibly, and current low-end 1 System cameras like the S1 and J3 are reasonably priced and well-positioned, with the V2 offering a much more compelling 'step up' option than the original V1.

The AW1 is shown here with one of its optional silicone skins attached (left) and 'naked', on the right. The orange rubber might have a certain appeal to those nostalgic for the Nikonos cameras of yore, but the AW1 is still impressively tough without this extra protection.

Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon. As such, we honestly didn't expect the company to significantly change the recipe quite yet. Arguably, Nikon didn't need to do much beyond adding lenses and periodically updating its entry-level, intermediate and advanced 1 System cameras to keep its target demographic happy. In an industry which is increasingly characterized by caution, this would have been perfectly normal.

And that's why the appearance of the AW1 is so refreshing. When we were shown the new camera at Nikon's American HQ recently we were very pleasantly surprised. Some of us are old enough to remember the famous Nikon 'Nikonos' waterproof film cameras, and although the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos (it's only rated to operate at 15m underwater rather than 50m, for a start), it has the potential to occupy a similar niche. What this means of course - assuming the AW1 performs well in our tests - is that it could make the 1 System genuinely interesting to enthusiasts and owners of other established systems. It might not be an evolutionary product - the AW1 is extremely similar to the inexpensive J3 in terms of specification - but its existence does evolve the 1 System.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X, Y, and Z and ideally A, B, and C.

This article is Copyright 1998 - 2015 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Comments

Great in depth review - I’ve got the smaller (& older) Nikon AW100 which use for underwater video - the video is great from it but the photographs are terrible so I’m really excited by the AW1 - I’ll definitely buy one.

The one thing I noticed was that the video quality of the sample (especially when panning) was downright awful - it looked more like it was shot on a mobile phone than a £750 camera… I’m guessing that it’s not meant to look like that…?

They just need to make a waterproof 10mm f2.8 pancake lens for it. Then it would KILL! (not that it doesn't already)

I'd like to see them make a 7mm f2.8, a 10mm f2.8, a 15mm f2.8, a 20mm f2.8, a 27mm f2.8, and a 35mm f2.8 VR Macro - all underwater lenses for the AW1 (and AW2 - presuming they will eventually make an AW2)

:)

I wish they would hurry up and get production going again! (or start selling an AW2)

I have several Nikons and I am looking for good 8x10 quality in a lightweight compact "Wet Capable" camera less than 15m depth but can be rough handled in the surf. Nikon1 AW1 has got me interested.I am cautious because I had an Olympus 1030SW and used it snorkelling. Adequate snapshots. Then I went sailing and jumped of a boat, the camera leaked, much less than 10m depth. Olympus response was as the camera was more than a year old (less than 2 years) but I had not had the seals serviced by an "Olympus Dealer" within the year. No one has mentioned seal replacement and guarantees in any of the underwater camera reviews. I expect to own a camera several years.

Have tested the 1aw1 in a shop!Good IQ!In wet conditions after swimming there's no way to change lens without water drops on the sensor. Have to dry for an hour and change then!1aw1 feels generally good and can also make better panoramas than other cameras in that segment, shooting in different directions possible.A fail is that there's no Raw management like in other Raw shooting Nikons I use. After shooting it is only possible to perform D-lightning and cropping. It is a shame that there's no Raw pic-stitching.When the 1aw1 cam and the 10mm 2.8 lens (part of the Kit) produce better results in particular resolution than other 1 lenses I will by it.Because under water you need only the best lenses from Nikon.

I guess this new camera is an acknowledgement that the initial V1 , was not a success. ( In fact their price did drop a lot).I do not think this camera will be a sucess either.How many people do underwater photography ? Not many. The demand will be therefore rather small I believe .Let us see.BTW : I am a V1 owner but I bough it at a heavily discounted price.

It's not just about underwater photography. I have a Panasonic TS2 that I bought years ago. I take it into the pool with the kids, trips to the beach, skiing/snowboarding/sledding, amusement parks, if the kids pick it up and take pictures I'm not worried about them damaging the camera. I tie it to my wrist or keep it in my pocket...it's more portable than this AW1 though. I'm not sure how useful a waterproof interchangeable lens would be (snorkeling, diving, swimming). Can they be changed after jumping out of the water quickly? If the visibility suddenly changes? There are IL cameras that are weatherproof if you get caught in a rainstorm or high-humidity environment. The AW1 looks like a pretty good camera even without considering the waterproof aspect. I do like the size too. I'm in the market to buy a new camera. Still considering something like the Pentax K-50 over the AW1 for what I would use it for. If I did a lot of snorkeling or shallow diving, then maybe the AW1.

This AW1 is an alternative to a DSLR with a housing, which is bulky and expensive. They will sell the hell out of this thing, if the image quality is acceptable. 14 megapixels is enough to print at 20x30. (I've printed at that size with 10 MP JPEGs from a camera with a 1.7 x crop factor sensor, and the detail was good . . . not just o.k.) My guess is Nikon has hit a home run here. I hope they make a few more waterproof lenses and a kick-ass 16 megapixel successor to this camera with a viewfinder, like the V2 has.

Bottom line is you need to base your camera choice on your budget and your IQ expectations. It makes no sense to get any camera if you are not happy with the images it captures.

One consideration for me is when sailing for months at a time I like to have a backup if something goes wrong, so before I head to Georgetown in Nov I will probably pick up one of these bad boys to go along with my other toys just in case.

But I will be using a view finder attached to the top of the camera. The LV is frequently useless under water in many lighting conditions not to mention I often am holding the camera at an odd angle to try and get the best composition, as well as looking through a mask that may be fogged up a little.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here have ever captured an image underwater in real conditions.

There is a reason guys pay US$8k and up for a dlsr and housing for underwater photography, it is called IQ.

I have a Canon 7d in a Nauticam housing I used when diving (free diving only enforced by gun boats from Mexico) with whale sharks. I also have an oly epm1 in a housing I picked up on close for $US399 a few months ago. I just returned from sailing my catamaran to the Dry Tortugas for six weeks and only took that camera with me as this was kinda shake down cruise for the upcoming trip to the Bahamas. The size and weight of the oly and housing (plus the fact that it floats) was a big OK, but IQ did suffer. I also have one of the older Canon d20 (like the 2.8 lens better than the newer model) and it is very usable, but again IQ suffers. Also have used a EWA plastic housing in the past as well as a Nikonos 4a film camera.

This might be the camera for backpacker who are also photographers. Lighter than a DSLR, waterproof so that you don't have to dry bag your camera, and way better image quality than a rugged point and shoot.

As someone that uses uw cameras for coral reef surveys and pleasure I would like to offer the following re several comments about the merit of this camera and other tough cameras rated to 10 - 15m: 1) I recently used my Olympus TG1 with wide angle lens rated to 10m at 25m with no issues.2) 15m is a usable depth for lots of reef based underwater photography and arguably offers greater opportunities due to better deco limits and more available light.3) No doubt Nikon will offer an additional underwater housing for use at greater depths.4) It is unique being a natively waterproof interchangeable lens system. Its main rivals will be housed compact cameras with wetfit lenses that can be changed uw.5) The biggest benefit of this system IMHO is size. Housed mirrorless systems (I have a GX1) are the size of an SLR. Great for those of us completing multiple tasks uw.Nikon should be applauded what's missing is a great waterproof wide angle zoom, Nikon make one of those and I will buy in.

A suggestion for DPreview. When you do more formal testing of this camera, please have sometime use it underwater at various depths to check for leaks. of course at some point you will recognize that you went too deep and now have a soggy sensor!

Yes!Break the damn camera! ;)!!!It would be quite informitive to know the breaking point and what failed. Keep it at 1 meter interval depths for 1hour. Make sure you get a handful of copies with both lenses. PS yes I want a pony too. Make sure it farts rainbows.

Does anyone know what the depth ratings mean for practical purposes. It isn't as if the system is completely water tight at 48 ft deep and then is leaking at 51 ft. Is there usually a margin of error. How deep would you safely take it. Would you never bring it below 30 ft or feel comfortable taking it to 60 or 80 ft? Are the ratings usually conservative or realistic.

In Nikonos times it was customary to build and test the UW devices of all sorts to at least 150% of the rated pressure. I have taken Nikonos models III and V below 80 meters (9Atm, or 200%) with no ill effects, also no distinguishable change in operation. Everything worked as smoothly as above surface. Nikonoses had rotational commands (hard-set shaft seats with no resistance change felt from o-ring deformation).The new models use biased-spring linear pin movement instead of o-ring sealed shafts, and so resist the pressure by spring force. This can develop some usage problems below rated depths.Also, most of the new "tough" models have curiously designed hatch sealings, which depend a lot upon the closing mechanism, and also do not employ o-rings. Both solutions put such cameras at risk. I seriously doubt it is the lack of knowlege (especially with Nikon), rather a purposefully built-in weak spot, so going deeper than rated would not be my idea of Nikonos-quality trusting any more.

The Nikonos wont be properly reborn until the camera uses full frame sensor.This seems like the development of the Nikon 1 system which almost was doomed to fail before it reached the shelves in the stores the first time. Craptax Q is an other joke amongst cameras with interchangeable lenses.The 1" sensor size however would make sense to used more in usual compacts and I certainly would like to see compacts like Cann S110 and Coolpix P7700 use this sensor size it it would be possible.

The lens on a Canon S110 would need be much bigger, heavier, and more expensive to work with a so called 1" sensor, same is true of the P7800/7700.

I think the story of general Nikon 1 series successes would be different if it had been introduced in say 2006. Look it faces stiff competition from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic; it's not a failure of a system.

In capacities this 1 series competes just fine, it does high ISO better than the MFT cameras--save those that released this month (Oct 2013). It just doesn't stand out. And no I have no idea about sales.

Waterproof to 15m is NOT an Underwater Camera! And much less the successor of the Nikonos V or RS that could go to 75m!!!!It's like the watches that say "Waterproof to 30m" but can barely go under 10!If the camera says 15m, it can barely go to -5m, because of dynamic pressure....Pity! would be nice to have a real Digital UW camera

I have never had an underwater watchpiece which leaked, and some of those had shaft operated internal divetime rings. So, static vs. dynamic pressures have nothing to do with sealing abilities at great depths, where the sealing components are solidly pressed against the casing. The problems one might experience would more likely come from improperly cleaned / maintained seal system, or some careless assembling of the device.

Probably best to ask Nikon for clarification on that. But at a guess, it seems most likely that setup isn't considered shockproof simply because the filter won't be. They have a bad habit of breaking when dropped.

All filters will be "waterproof" if you take care to mount and also remove them in water, taking care not to leave any air bubbles between the lens and filter. Do not apply force when screwing the filter in, the temperature difference might make it hard to remove later, and do not fatten the threads with silicone grease; best use light oil to protect the thread scratches from corrosion.Otherwise, the greatest danger to filters in the water, they get lost easily. There is a way to keep them safe and handy:Find an old diving neoprene suit and cut off about 15 cm of one sleeve. Pull the sleeve over your arm and turn the lower part upward over the rest, to create a pocket between two layers of neoprene. Sew the doubled upper rim together at three places. That's all.Keep the filters, add-on lenses and such in the pocket(s) around between the layers. It will be a safe, snug fit giving sufficient protection, and also easily accessible.

People used flash sync speed like that for ages, with no complaints... ... also hand-set apertures and manual focus,... also no TTL or other dedicated flash metering,... and still they have managed to get a lot of sharp, correctly exposed pics.All they did was try and learn about the same four basic elements in photography that still apply - only now these are masked by things called "program modes".These programmed modes are maybe what creates an ever greater distances between learning and camera users - more's the pity - and for nothing more than mercantilistic reasons.The light surely remained the same. :)

How did I get 10's of thousands of sharp photos with my Nikon F's slow flash speed of only 1/60 with a Honeywell 800 Strobonar flash! The bigger question must now be, why did soooo many people/pro's by the Nikon F with it's 1/60 flash sync speed over the 14 years it was produced starting in 1959?

You don't really understand flash, do you goloby? The flash duration, which is responsible for freezing the action, is much faster than 1/60 (usualy 1/200-1/1000 second). 1/60 is just the amount of time the shutter stays open for the ambient light (background) exposure. This will rarely be a problem underwater.

Looks great ...and everyone can praise or belittle it all they want ...but my first thought is, now you have an $800 or $1000 camera with very "unsecure" sealing (from what it looks like). The claim of Nikonos-like with what looks like the bad sealing of the compacts available.

Exactly what I'm talking about, thank you for proving my point. Its the only mirrorless waterproof that shoots RAW, so preorder it and hope it doesn't leak ...but even if it does leak, that doesn't matter because it shoots RAW? Awesome.

“but even if it does leak, that doesn't matter because it shoots RAW?”

And where did I say that? I didn’t.

However it is still the only raw shooting camera that is even slightly waterproof. (Yes I know one can modify the slow lensed Canon tough cameras to shoot raw with CHDK.)

Raw is kind of pointless if this camera doesn’t work, because of leaking or some other failure. And the same obvious point applies to any other raw shooting digital camera.

Now about things you did say: “claim of Nikonos-like”, which is not in any part of the text. And next: “with what looks like the bad sealing of the compacts available.” Well you really don’t know how the seals work, there aren’t detailed pictures of all of the seals. So you have to wait for reviews, or until you handle one.

Sorry but the first thing I noticed is: what is with all the horrible photo's of the camera? both on the front page in the selection at the top, the images on the first page of the review as well, have dpreview lost they're talent for propper exposure and focusing?

It was probably in a display case, disturbing both the lighting and focus. There will be an optical and light distortion, even if you (by luck) focus on the camera body and not its surrounding plastic and glass. Nikon might wish to protect the camera this way, too, lest every one of the hundreds of inspectors try to drop it from 6', 7', or 8' in order to see if it continues to work.

put the rx100 in the recsea housing and it is still noticeably smaller and compact than 95% of the offerings out there. plus, a tiny camera underwater is a handling nightmare...unless you have tiny hands, of course.

True. And in Japan Nikon 1 is actually doing quite well. Though Japan is just one, hardly a most important market. Definitely not large enough to compensate for all of the losses in other markets that their Nikon 1 generates (sales are marginal, while expenses on marketing and manufacturing/delivery are all there).

With its small body and 25mm wide end, TG-2 is *the* serious camera of the two. And its meter and WB systems are good enough that it doesn't need the crutch of RAW processing.Wake me up when Nikon comes up with a camera that can fit into a PFD pocket, and has decent wide angle. IS wouldn't hurt, either. *Then* I'll ask if it has a decent jpeg processor, and if not, if there's the RAW option

Nope, because the TG1/2 has a small sensor, which can't be used above ISO 800 and only shoots jpeg. So the Olympus is not a serious camera, "serious" doesn't mean small.

Olympus was lazy.

Who cares about WB if the system shoots raw?

Raw is not a crutch, since you clearly don't know, shooting raw avoids jpeg artifacts, some exposure problems, color issues, and then the already mentioned having to get WB correct the first time--not the same thing as colour. Don't forget less noise and the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with raw. Not like higher ISOs help when snorkeling [sarcasm].

Those who claim jpegs are good enough, either aren't doing challenging shooting ever, or don't care about image quality. That jpegs are good enough sometimes is a different matter.

This particular Olympus you laud does not do good jpegs--more laziness by Olympus.

Stop with the claims that a camera with a much smaller sensor comes close to the image quality of any Nikon 1 system camera.

Yes, for a small jpeg only camera, that Olympus is good at ISO 400 and below. However being able to pocket a jpeg only camera means usually something other than high image quality.

I agree that Nikon would be best to release waterproofed versions of the faster 1 series lenses; there’s an F1.8 and F1.2. I assume Nikon will make waterproofed versions of these lenses, once this waterproofed 1 series body starts to sell.

Despite the fact that the Olympus has an F2.0 lens, and the fastest waterproofed 1 series lens announced is F2.8, the Nikon body has a much bigger sensor, which can easily be used at ISO 3200+ and of course the Nikon shoots raw.

Sadly Olympus was lazy with the TG series, and the sad irony is that when Olympus decides to Olympus makes much better lenses than anything from Nikon.

HowaboutRAW , I understand your pount. at first I am excited too but than I realize lens lose 1 stop, no IS lose at least 1 stop or more. than with at least 2 stop loss, how much better in low light really. again nice first try but at leats IS must be added to make it worthy for the extra size not using the 10-30mm VR as kit is a serious mistake in my opinion

The thing is this sensor in the Nikon and the lenses are known quantities, and you can find samples from them to look at. You’ll find ISO 3200 raws perfectly useable. It’s the waterproofing that’s new, not the sensor or lens.

You’d have a point about the Olympus having a faster lens (only when wide of course) if the Olympus recorded raw data, but it doesn’t. Nor does the camera have real manual settings.

And the fact remains that more lenses are very likely to be released in the waterproof form for this Nikon tough 1 series.

It’s also much easier to steady a body like that of the Nikon’s than it is a pocket camera.

The Olympus is just a decent small pocket jpeg only camera, so not a significant challenge to a system with a much bigger sensor and raw.

Separately you've raised a point about the Nikon 1 series, they didn't introduce fast lenses to start, they're repeating this mistake, but plenty fast nonwaterproof lenses do indeed exist.

Wait! Didn't I read an article on this website about a month ago regarding the latest Nikon financial statement. They reported that 1 System sales have been disappointing. Now dpreview is telling me that the system is doing "pretty well." Okay, which is it?

I owned a Nikonos V and while it was definitely the camera for my underwater work, the lenses were not dialed in for use on land. The images it produced had very high contrast with very deep shadows and blown highlights. The characteristics of the lens that was less than helpful on land was just what was needed underwater. I'd like to see some test results for these new lenses. Maybe they've found the best compromise.

The Nikon 1 system really does pretty well, at least in some parts of the world. They have the fourth largest market share in mirrorless ILCs after Sony, Olympus and Panasonic. That doesn't preclude Nikon from being disappointed, though, because they obviously expected an even larger share of the market.

until I see how this camera actually performs underwater, I am not celebrating a $700USD underwater camera when I can still get the E-PM1 w/housing for $500...since I do like surf photography this may work for that...now let's see some hands on reviews in some of these water sports.

Come on, give me break.Rebirth of the mythical Nikonos ? Nikonos were slr cameras, designed at the beginning for Commandant Cousteau so he could take pictures under the sea. This Nikon 1 is merely an hybrid with some waterproof features. It's like comparing apples with tomatoes.Let's cut the marketing crap once and for all.

Actually, Nikonos cameras were originally not SLRs. The first Nikonos "beginning for Commandant Cousteau" in 1963 was not an SLR and all the subsequent Nikonos models for the next 30 years weren't either. It wasn't until 1992 (!) that the Nikonos camera finally became an SLR.

BTW, trying to look through an SLR viewfinder underwater kinda sucks, especially while wearing a diving mask. It's a lot easier to frame with a large 3" lcd screen in such conditions. So it's rather lame to even want an SLR when the mirrorless form factor with LCD screen framing would work a lot better than an SLR. Looking through a tiny SLR peep hole underwater while wearing a diving mask? "Come on, give me a break."

That POV action cam market is getting close to plateauing (or whatever marketers call it), with only incremental annual updates and stuff. I guess they will do the predictable stuff like NFC pairing, better video, 4k@30p, etc.

The Go pro is niche video camera that is not much use for stills (I have a couple of Hero 2s and had and returned a Hero 3). This is a niche stills camera that will probably be OK for Video. The Hero 4 will almost certainly have 30fps 4K but more useful is 120fps 1080p and 240 720p. The downside for the Nikon for me is the 15m limit.

interesting cam, give it a bit more reach and evf and it is a very sensible tough compact travel camera for desert and tropical rainforest (or your typical european winter) usage. Would love a bit more control on the outside and a 14-150 reach with real good image stabilisation.

Have could it have "No lens to change"? - it has two underwater rated lenses if you actually read the article, and can use the other "normal" series 1 lenses and probably other Nikon lenses via the series 1 adapter.Obviously if you don't intend to use it for it's purpose then why would you buy it? There is nothing else like it on the market - that's why it is causing a fuss. The alternatives cr*appy little compacts or bulky expensive housings weighing 1-2 kgs.As for not submerging it -well, that says more about you than the camera.

Wolfie: exactly when, or how, will you change lenses under water, or even above water between plunges? Very likely, the camera must be bathed in distilled water and allowed to dry considerable time first. The battery chamber seals might be finnicky, or apt to fail, after months' wear and tear. The water pressure tolerance might vanish, or the warranty void, after a few 6' falls. Or do wet hands never fail? Reviewers are apt to "baby" the camera, or submerge it only once, whereas a real world test would expose it to multiple stresses. $1,500 is a lot to put at risk if mere $250 sealed lens versions have a rather high failure rate. Or will it be proof enough to see Ashton Kutcher pose with the camera on a beach?

Look my local public ocean beach, you know with life guards, has fresh water showers.

So after using the camera in the surf, it's simple enough to rinse the camera off in the showers. Distilled water is not an absolute necessity.

Then without access to fresh running water, well you have to find a source of clean fresh water and those are kind of important for survival so it's likely something you'll have. (Guess in the middle of the desert, starved for water, you may decide to forego rinsing the camera before a lens change.)

And no, I've not forgotten that the camera and lens needs dry before the swap.

So, assuming no major manufacturing defect, this camera and the lenses will likely sell well for Nikon--unless say Panasonic announces something very similar next week.

Or of course you don't have to change the lens immediately, simply wait until in a clean and dry environment, like a car.

That's one more reason for manufacturers to finally see the light and stop producing those funny excuses for sealing. It's one thing how it looks in the designing program or on the drawing board, and quite another in the brine.Usually you can't budge neither lens nor the hatches deep down, but immediately under the surface, and if the sealing they use now depends upon the hatch closing mechanism, it will not be safe. And if you expose such sealing to the (unequally distributed) pressure of water jet, as in the shower, it may lift and let the water in. This problem may be augmented by the temperature difference, since the sudden cooling of (sun-warmed) camera might develop a partial vacuum, which in turn can suck in the water, should the tiniest part of the seal edge be dislodged by waterjet pressure.So, do not wash the camera under the strong shower, unless it is sealed by o-rings. Rinsing thoroughly in a water bucket will do.